Conceptual Theory of the Working Class - Coursework Example

On Social es in Britain: The Working Outline Introduction On Social es in Britain: The Working Conclusion Introduction According to Fucher and Scott (2003: 689–731) and Bilton (2002: 96–126), Karl Marx’s conceptualisation of the working class or proletariat was regarded as an individual who does not have any control and power over the means of production. On the other hand, Max Weber stated that working class had originated in the domain of market or economic realm and did not consider classes to be reduced in groups or communities alone. Working class in itself is not the primary basis of class formation in the capitalist system. Nowadays, working class is typically described as a representation of a group of people in the society who is performing skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled manual labour. Because there are a lot of ways in which the term working class is defined, explained and contextualised especially with the economic changes brought by deindustrialisation in particular, this paper aims to critically evaluate the concept of working class in modern Britain. On Social Classes in Britain: The Working Class Both the classical traditions in sociological theory, Marx and Weber, had different approaches on studying groups and class of society. According to Kirby et al. (2001: 638 – 684), Marx basically argued that the capitalist system is responsible for the inequality in social classes. In Marxist theory, the social classes are determined by the relationship of individuals to the means of productions. An individual can own the means of production or otherwise, but instead, work for the productive property. For Marx, the society is composed of two (2) primary classes such as the bourgeoisie who owns the means of production and the proletariat who is in need of selling his or her labour power to those who have control over the means of production. In his terms, the proletariat or the working class is the wage labourer who has to be exploited in the capitalist system because of the commodities that control his or her everyday life. According to Edgell (1993: 2 – 10), the conflict theory perceives the stratification in the society as beneficial and advantageous only to the bourgeoisie class. This group has the power and control to dominate and exploit the labour power of individuals in order to accumulate wealth. Given the unequal distribution of wealth in the capitalist system, this perspective views that the grounds for class struggle lie in the capitalist urge to become conscious of surplus value. These tensions would lead to social disorder leading to its own destruction. The proletariats would strive for equality and freedom from the bourgeoisies. Meanwhile, in contrast to Marx, Weber’s analysis of class has similarity to Marx’s in a sense that it is something rooted on the economic dimension though the point of divergence is that it is not limited on this alone. Aside from the ownership or non – ownership of the means of production as a factor, Weber considered that social stratification has other related dimensions such as status and power. In this case, there are more possible classes in the society other than just the capitalists and the workers. The working class is a not just a result of not owning the means of production but conceptualised such on the grounds of unequal access to resources (O ‘Donnell 1997: 161 – 184; and Taylor et al. 1995: 36). Moreover, given that the functionalist perspective views that society is inclined towards social stability and order, this theoretical approach sees that to be a working class is just vital for the equilibrium in the society. This is for the reason that differences in social classes make a system of inter – dependence in a more divided means of production which leads towards greater harmony in the overall (Giddens 2009: 67 – 97). However, how the term working class is defined is not limited to the contextualisation made by Marx and Weber. Some perceive the working class as manual workers which are then categorised into skilled, semi – skilled and unskilled manual workers. Nonetheless, working class is also defined as only limited to semi – skilled and unskilled manual labourers. The traditional proletariats no longer make up the whole traditional idea of the working class. Haralambos (2008: 34 – 35) identified three (3) significant trends in Britain that have driven the changes in the entire idea of working class identity. First among the reason is the process of deindustrialisation. In this regard, different industries such as shipbuilding, mining, steal, and coal have been affected. The manual labourers as a section of the working population have decreased as a consequence of such deindustrialisation. About 80 percent of workers made up manual labourers in Britain in 1991 although it was reduced to 30 percent in 1991. At present, manual workers comprise only less than one – fourth of the total workforce in Britain. Secondly, since the 1950s, from belonging to the working class, a number of civil servants, nurses, clerical workers and teachers have grown because of the substantial development of the welfare state. Third is the intensifying division of the traditional working class. There are some sectors of the working class who are receiving higher wages relatively to others as well as their careers are flourishing more than the others. On the one hand, the other sectors have turned out to be less skilled and less secured in their employment. In the mid - 1980s, the new working class who is paid with higher salaries can now afford to buy their council houses. While this working class has become more like the middle class, the other working class has remained to be the underclass. These changes in Britain have caused the decline in the traditional working class identity over the years. Self – employed people have grown significantly in recent years in which majority are manual labours yet these individuals have no one controlling them but themselves. They are their own bosses, indeed. In further analysis of the social classes, three concepts namely proletarisation, embourgeoisement and death of class are taken into consideration. Haralambos (2008: 50–52) stated that from Marxism, proletarisation is contextualised as a downward mobility of that sort where individuals move to being wage labourers. An intensifying number of individuals are reduced to reliance on selling their labour power in exchange of salary due to the limited sources of income to sustain the living. From a Weberian framework, Lockwood’s work on the variations in the stratification position of the clerical worker claimed that a lot of white–collar workers are no less different with the manual labourers because their work situations are so much alike with the proletariat. Locating a class position regardless of occupation can be done most effectively through differentiating the material rewards from work situation and market as well as the symbolic rewards from one’s status. His argument was that the proletarian tradition was a culture of a more collective than individualistic search for common goals. Meanwhile, its opposite is embourgeoisement where individuals move from being in the working class to a more bourgeoisie of that sort because of their efforts or collective action. An example of this is the earlier mentioned growth in number of public sector workers like teachers and clerical workers. A number of working classes become middle classes. According to Edgell (1993: 27–29), Goldthorpe’s class division also contributed to the embourgeoisement thesis. He differentiated a service class from the intermediate class. For him, the service class which is comprised by the larger employers, managers, professionals, and others, has higher salary, better promotional prospects as well as the rights to pension while the intermediate class is composed of the clerical workers, technicians and others who are not as fortunate as the former. Given the conflicts of unequal wealth distribution in the capitalist society, from the conflict theory, Marx greatly considered that this contradiction would cultivate a revolutionary movement in which the proletariat would in the end remove from power the bourgeoisie so it would be a classless society where all individuals would be equal. In the event of death of class, there would be no hierarchy in the society. It means the abolishment of the pre-existing class structure. No one has to dominate and rule over the other because of the fact that poverty would be non – existent. The society will have no one born in a specific social class. There would be no ruling class and no dominated class but everyone will belong to only one class. There would be no difference among individuals in terms of wealth, assets, salary, education, culture as well as social capital (Edgell 1993: 116–122). Conclusion In this critical evaluation of the concept of working class in modern Britain, two theories of the classical traditions of sociology are explored, Marx’s conflict theory and Weberian functionalist theory. Marx’s approach on class was at the macro-level for he had illustrated the general origins of social stratification while Weber’s was at a micro- level because it’s specific to its nature. Their point of convergence is that both consider the economic dimension to be important cause of class stratification. However, Weber is not limited on this alone. Over the years, the traditional idea of working class is challenged with sets of economic changes like deindustrialisation, expansion of welfare state and the intensifying division of the traditional working class. However, even if it is the case that there are problems with having many definitions confining the working class, social classes still exist in modern Britain. References: Bilton, T., et al. (2002), Introductory Sociology, 4th edition, Palgrave Macmillan. Edgell, S. (1993), Class, London: Routledge. Fulcher, J., and Scott, J., Sociology, 2nd edition, 2003 Giddens, A. (2009), Sociology, 6th edition, Polity Press. Haralambos, M. (2004)., Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 6th edition, Collins Educational. Haralambos, M. (2008)., Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 7th edition, Collins Educational. Kirby, M., Kidd, W., Koubel, F., Barter, J., Hope, T., Kirton, A., Madry, N., Manning, P., and Tiggs, K. (2001), Sociology in Perspective, AQA edition, Heinemann College. ODonnell, M. (1997), A New Introduction to Sociology, 4th edition, Nelson Thornes. Taylor, P., Richardson, J., Yeo, A., Marsh, I., Trobe, K., Pilkington, A. (1995), Sociology in Focus, Causeway Press. Read More